In this presentation, we report a two fold approach to the issues and
opportunities modern electronic media pose for scientific information.

The first part of this paper addresses a number of elements in the process
of information: needs, transfer, and disclosure in academic environments
and discusses results of in-depth interviews with a number of scientists
from various fields.

In the second part, we discuss the changes electronic publishing will
induce in scientific information handling. We try to analyse the different
cognitive components leading to a variety of ways in which information
is presented, and we briefly discuss recent research towards a better understanding
of the fundamental changes electronic publishing will introduce.

2.1 The science process

The main issue to be addressed in the context of electronic publishing
is:

"How can it support and enhance the science process"?

Communication is the essence of science, and more particularly, it is
the engine of the whole science process (1, 2).
The scientific communication process is an object of investigation and
it provides data for research programmes in a variety of science studies
(1, 3-7).

It would go well beyond the scope of this contribution to describe the
science process even in some detail. We will assume here that the science
process consists of a system of related, mostly competing research programmes
(4, 5). On this basis a number
of different stages in the research process from conceptionalisation of
problems, to theory, to hypotheses, to predictions and testing, and finally
interpretation of research outcomes can be distinguished (5)
While we realise that there is no consensus on the above, these different
stages lead to a number of main communication needs as experienced by researchers
in different fields (see below).

This structure of the science process has a number of social consequences,
which are discipline dependent. Most important are common standards, resulting
in specific rules and ethics. Furthermore, each scientist has to establish
his own position, and this is mainly done through recognition of his contributions
to science in the research process. These contributions can be informal
and formal and are to a large extent manifested in publications (6,
7).

2.2 Communication needs

Generally, the communication needs result from research needs in the
different stages of the science process. Analysis (8)
indicates the following needs:

awareness of knowledge, both in the researcher's own research domain,
as well as in other (mostly related) research domains. Though of particular
importance in the earlier stages of the science process, it is a conditio
sine qua non throughout all stages.

awareness of new research outcomes: new developments have to be followed
closely and need to be accounted for in the research process at the earliest
possible stage.

specific information: this means relevant theories, and detailed information
on research design, instrumentation, and methodologies.

and also:

scientific standards: scientific standards are gradually being developed
within a research programme and are an important element in the social
structure of the science process.

platform for communication: the researcher should have at his disposal
a fully-fledged communication platform satisfying his needs, from the very
informal, private discussions to convenient, formal interactions with colleagues.

ownership protection: throughout the entire research process the researcher
wants to claim priority of his contribution to the research fields, and
needs protection, at a variable degree, depending on the stage, of this
ownership; this ownership extends to how the information is communicated
and disseminated.

2.3 Developments

It is inherent to science, and to the science process, that both are
in constant flux or growth. In this contribution, two aspects of this constant
growth are worth mentioning:

despite the fact that science has been growing at a rather constant
pace for more than 300 years (9), there is the general
feeling that this accumulated growth has lead to an unmanageable pile of
information and that the growth of information leads to less effective
and efficient communication, threatening in turn the effectiveness and
the efficiency of the science process itself.
Recent publications (10) address this issue, but
in 1979, William D. Garvey (1) already stated: "
... in some disciplines, it is easier to repeat an experiment than it is
to determine that the experiment has already been done".

This is pure destruction of invested capital, and as research funding
becomes more and more an issue to the political agenda in many countries,
the effectiveness and efficiency of scientific communication is becoming
crucial. The inefficiency is partly due to the fragmented information over
the many different information sources we have.

at the same time there exists an increasing competition in science:
not only competition arising from the dynamics of the competing research
programmes, but also for economic and funding reasons; this competition
leads in turn to upward pressure on the communication and information system.

In the previous section, we have formulated a number of theses on the
communication process as an important engine for the science process. Communication
needs are seen to be related to, and have different impact on, the different
stages in every research process. The main question then is: how can we
increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the communication process
for the individual researcher? What are the main elements, what are the
main expectations and desires a researcher has?

For our research we identify as key issues:

The information needs: whereas the system is now more fragmented, and
segmented, what expectations do researchers have with respect to a more
integrated system?

The infrastructure of the system: are we moving from the present more
closed system to an open, distributed and fully transparent system, where
transparency is defined from the user's end?

3.1 Research design

The above-mentioned key issues are being addressed in field research
comprising a number of in-depth interviews with individual researchers.

In our heuristic model there is a tendency to an open infrastructure
and an integrated system. This model is being investigated on a stratified
sample of individual researchers in the following scientific disciplines:

high-energy physics

organic chemistry

mechanical engineering

neuroscience

clinical medicine

The objective of the research is to identify the expectations and desires
researchers have with respect to the above themes. A number of pertinent
themes is probed in a structured way using so-called provocative statements.
Opinions of researchers are then further probed, using expert interviewers
from the publishing departments of Elsevier
Science. In that way, we allow hypotheses and other issues to be put
to test, and to be criticised or falsified. Motives for certain opinions,
expectations and desires can then be identified. A full description of
the research method is given in (11). An example
of a provocative statement, and some results for the mentioned disciplines,
are given in Table 1.

TABLE 1When looking for specific information, researchers are not interested
in the quality of the refereeing process

Discipline

Opinion

Expectations on infrastructure

Desires on infrastructure

All

2.4

1.9

2.0

Clinical medicine

2.3 (0)

1.7 (0)

2.1 (0)

Neuroscience

2.1 (0)

2.1 (0)

2.5 (0)

Organic chemistry

1.9 (--)

1.6 (-)

1.5 (-)

Mechanical engineering

2.9 (+)

1.9 (0)

1.8 (0)

High energy physics

2.7 (+)

2.5 (+)

2.2 (0)

Researchers will more and more use on-line information services
that select sources on the basis of their own personal profile in order
to fulfil their own specific information needs

Discipline

Opinion

Expect. on infrastructure

Desires on infrastructure

Expect. on information needs

Desires on information needs

All

4.2

4.4

4.3

4.4

4.3

Clinical medicine

4.7 (++)

4.6 (0)

4.7 (++)

4.6(0)

4.7 (++)

Neuroscience

4.5 (++)

4.8(++)

4.6(0)

4.8 (++)

4.6(0)

Organic chemistry

4.2 (0)

4.2 (0)

3.9 (0)

4.2 (0)

3.8 (-)

Mechanical engineering

3.8 (-)

4.6 (0)

4.4 (0)

4.6 (0)

4.5 (0)

High energy physics

3.7 (--)

4.2 (0)

4.0 (0)

4.2 (0)

4.0 (0)

Numbers indicate agreement with statement and scale from
1 to 5 (1 is strong disagreement, 5 is strong agreement). Brackets denote
difference of discipline from average ranging from significant (++) to
significant (--).

For this contribution, we restrict ourselves to summarising the main
overall results and conclusions from our research. First we discuss the
results in terms of the four main functions in scientific communication
(section 4.1). Then we discuss more specific needs behind
these functions in detail (section 4.2).

4.1 Main functions

It is useful to distinguish four main functions in scientific communication.

The certification function concerns the validation of research quality
and has to do with scientific standards within a research programme.

The registration function relates particular research to an individual
scientist, who then claims priority for the research. This function is
closely connected to ownership protection, and the reward system, and to
a large extent influences the social dynamics within the system.

A third function is the awareness function, which leads to disclosure
and search needs, such as, e.g., browsing, of the researcher.

The last function we mention is the archival function, and this function
relates to storage and accessibility of information.

Technological dynamics will clearly influence all these functions, however,
not conceptionally, but much more in the way these functions can be performed
in the future. Recent technological developments allow novel ways of access
to stored information, and this again impacts on the way information needs
to be structured (see below). Technological dynamics can then lead to a
new architecture of scientific communication, provided this architecture
is accepted by the scientific community. This scientific community has
in the past proven to be rather conservative in its acceptance of new technology,
as is illustrated in the following quote (1):

" resistance to new media stems from scientists' concern that
the goals of the scientific system would not be fulfilled by these media".

4.2 Acquisition needs

The results of the survey show that researchers have rather well- defined
expectations and desires with respect to acquisition needs. We can separate
acquisition needs into two parts: demands with respect to the information
proper and demands with respect to the process of acquiring information.

4.2.1 Information needs

Reliability - is a conditio sine qua non for information.
Whereas some researchers may want to rely on their own judgement, and then
only when they are highly familiar with the research reported, the overall
majority of researchers wishes to rely on an independent quality check
that meets external, known and accepted standards. The main reason is overall
expediency and efficiency in the process, as well as convenience. At the
same time, the present refereeing system is sometimes questioned. Smaller,
highly formalised research areas with a well-defined social structure,
such as high-energy physics, tend to move more towards self-evaluation.

Relevance - related to subject, scope, and level of research.
Relevance can only be judged by the individual researcher. Structuring
of the information and linking of mutually relevant sources of information
facilitates this process.

Timeliness - the desired time to access information depends
very much on the dynamics of the research. Demands on timeliness therefore
vary per research field. Dynamic, closed and formalised research fields
with a high demand for priority over certification lean towards self-publishing,
either in an informal or formal way. Early access coupled to a proper refereeing
system is however preferred.

Presentation - is related to efficiency of communication and
convenience. Presentation on paper is still considered superior to screen
presentation; however this is not an impediment to acceptance of the latter,
as improvements are taken for granted.

Storage - this is probably the most important issue to be addressed
for all agents in the publishing chain. The scientific community at large
has strong expectations with respect to the following issues:

delocalisation of archives: world-wide accessibility irrespective of
location of researcher. This is in particular an interesting option for
those researchers who now have very restricted access. It is expected to
open up new dimensions in the dynamics of research programmes and will
affect the social structures of science.

transparency of the system - disclosure should not be impeded or restricted
to artificial domains, such as: subject area, geography, time, collection,
etc..

standards - standardisation is generally seen as an unresolved issue
and beyond the realm of the researcher.

while maintaining their distinction, informal and formal communication
will become much more intertwined. A division is likely to be based more
on the different functions they have in the research process.

the archive should allow the reader to integrate all his information
needs irrespective of the different information sources.

responsibility for the archive is considered an open question, beyond
the realm of the researcher. The archive needs not only to be designed,
but operated and maintained in a professional way.

4.2.2 Process of acquisition

There are a number of different strategies to select, retrieve, and
process information. The following main elements come to the fore:

time to access - primarily an issue of efficiency and convenience.

convenience - in particular, fragmentation of information is found
to be a main obstacle. The structure of information is important, in particular
for those searching activities that cannot be outsourced to information
specialists. The readiness to outsource to information specialists depends
on the scientific discipline.

comprehensiveness - needs to be defined from the researcher's point
of view, i.e., the reader integrates the information. This requires an
integrated information structure covering different sources (see also section
5).

transportability - taken for granted.

generative power - this relates to serendipity in the acquisition as
well as searching accuracy.

transparency - research ethics require an open, transparent system.
Open access to information is a main condition for progress in research.
Transparency requires an open infrastructure for dissemination. Whereas
we now have fragmentation of needs, by segmentation in different products,
integration of needs with optimum migration between products is being requested.
Where increasing specialisation now leads to specificity of information,
individuality of information that can cross borders and at the same time
allows for the existing different communication cultures is being requested.

costs - acquisition of information involves costs. It involves costs
for the creator of the information, as well as for the value added to the
information as supplied by the creator. Added value relates to selection,
processing, structuring, distribution and dissemination. This added value
and resulting price has to be offset against the value information has
for the research process. From a researcher's point of view, the price
of information is not an issue, according to our research results.

4.3 Dissemination needs

The research indicates that the following familiar issues are considered
as remaining important or to becoming even more important:

visibility

retrievability

time to reader

convenience

"impact"

interaction - this is particularly important for feedback.

In general, researchers have high expectations that more direct interaction
using electronic facilities for informal and formal communication will
increase feedback, and therefore effectiveness and efficiency of the research
process.

4.4 Summary of our first results

In summary, the research allows us to conclude the following:

researchers expect and desire a communication system allowing for the
integration of needs, as defined from the reader's viewpoint. Integration
is not restricted to text, but includes also data, pictures, film, sound,
etc.

this requires an open infrastructure. This is not always appreciated
by individual researchers.

The agents in the publishing chain may well focus on the following main
aspects:

content - there is, as before, a clearly defined, growing need for
reliable information, that is easily accessible. Improved standards of
certification and preparation of information are being requested.

5.1 Introductory remarks

From the studies discussed in the first part of this paper, it is clear
that scientific information is contextual in a double sense. Firstly the
type of information is different in different fields. A geological chart
is a totally different object from a histogram of radioactive decay rates,
though both can be displayed as large colour posters. Secondly the usage
of different types of information (including the cutting and clipping)
is different. The emerging electronic tools already heavily influence the
way scientists think and represent their thinking and research results.
These two contextual levels will be expressed differently in different
media.

Present day digital information acquisition, storage, and handling techniques
represent the apogee of the development which started with the possibility
of using electrical devices for information handling. Given the flexibility
of these techniques, we see that reporting of scientific research and its
technical expressions will be further entangled. All this is not new; in
the early sixties, Marshall McLuhan's famous book "Understanding Media"
(12) already heralded discussions on the deep influences
new technologies have in shaping culture. Most of these discussions, however,
were developed in departments of Mass Communication and Media Studies.
Within the sciences, we spent a lot of time and energy in developing these
new tools but we hardly analysed the decisive role new technologies have
in reporting our own results. In order to be able to understand, shape
and use the new media proper, without losing the essential objectives
of scientific communications discussed in section 4. of
this paper, we have to dissect the various interacting levels and their
components.

5.2 Preparing a research programme

Within the context of our research programme which aims at defining
and developing the employment of the new electronic media, we would like
to discuss here two different but intertwined components:

The research and development of different ways of presenting, manipulating,
and storing information (see section 5.2.1).

The developments of methods and tools to enhance the disclosure of
information (see section 5.2.2).

Within the following, we take the burgeoning development of sheer storage
and transport (bandwidth) capacity as given. These exploding technologies
provide the technological infrastructure for novel methods. As interesting
as they are, as objects of scientific research per se, they are, however,
not critical of the conceptual developments needed to address issues in
scientific information handling as outlined in section 4.

5.2.1 Presenting and storing information.

Over the last years, we already saw a most promising development towards
a better structuring of information. The Standardised
Mark-up Language (SGML), and Hypertext
Mark-up Language (HTML) are well known and accepted working standards
today (13). A quite different approach than just
loading classical documents on electronic storage media, leads to research
to reveal and structure the inherent modularity of information. Text, pictures,
films, animationís, and sound are all separated and independent ways of
presenting information. Until now, technology has confined the bulk of
information presentation to text with illustrations. At the moment we see
an explosion of technical possibilities which make available in addition
to texts, all non-textual forms of information. The point is, however,
that we do not need additions to texts, but that we need integrated information
systems (as already discussed in section 4).

Every kind of presentation of information has its own character and
is a different expression of the reported object, phenomenon, or theory.
If we really want to value the possibilities of including sound, colour,
movies, etc., into regular scientific reporting, we have to analyse their
specific riles in the communication process (see section
4.3). Historically, communication is confined to the printed journal,
with the result that text is now the most important ingredient. Pictures
started as illustrations of the text: as extensions. In the course of time,
visual display of quantitative information became a craft in itself: the
picture expresses more than a thousand words can do (14).
In an electronic environment, the picture might become a similar prime
source of information, whilst the text then becomes the explanation to
the figure in complete symmetry with the figure as an illustration of the
text. In the same way, films, sounds, animationís, etc., will become full
expressions of scientific results in their own right. We will deal with
this point further on in the next section.

5.2.2 Disclosure

Within the Library Sciences, information retrieval (IR) research is
already a well established field. In this contribution, we will not spend
much time on these aspects. At the moment, it is sufficient to list the
following fundamental problems IR research is facing (15):

In systems where we use the full text of articles, so called free text
searching systems, the search possibilities are confined to the words provided
by the author. The manipulable information is restricted to the work as
provided by the author. As already emphasised above, research and hence
the authors language is very contextual, full of jargon and very much the
expression of more or less closed social environments. For that reason
free text searching systems are very difficult to handle for readers who
are not conversant with the jargon of the particular field. This might
be readers from other (adjacent) fields, but also readers within the field
but reading from another perspective, be it geographically (American scientist
reading Russian science), or temporally (today's scientists reading old
work in their own field). From another point of view, one can say that
free text searching approaches the problem from the author's point of view.

In systems with controlled keyword lists and thesauri (externally added
keys), we are confronted with the almost impossibility of mapping content
onto a fixed list of concepts. Whilst in the case of free text systems,
we are able to maximally manipulate the texts as given, in the case of
controlled keywords we reduce (or coalesce) language into fixed notions.
However, to be useful, these notions need to be stable, at least for some
time. Thus controlled keywords and thesauri always lag behind the research
language used. It is important to note that, opposite to free text terms,
controlled terms express in a way the readers point of view. Unfortunately,
articles are now only indexed once, and retrospective indexing of collections
of articles in order to identify old work to new concepts, and vice versa,
never happens.

In cases where we use references to disclose works that we need, we
take the list of references as transmittal indicators. Not the works we
have accessed, but the cited works are wanted. The problem is that the
reason a reference is given by the citing author is not always clear. Is
it just to show the author knows his field, is it to flatter a possible
referee, is the reference to the competition deliberately left out, etc.?
What is needed is a better link between the cited work and the context
in which the citing author deems this reference useful. Fortunately, due
to the speed-up of the publication process by electronic means, the time-lag
inherent in the use of references as disclosure tools will be reduced.
The use of references as disclosure tools emphasise their context, or embedding,
of the wanted information.

Thus the research programme that we propose entails the development
of domain-specific information representating structures which link scientific
or related information concepts to the specific context in which they are
used. One way to do this is to create a collection of flexible domain-specific
thesauri. Even if terms in different thesauri within a collection are literally
the same, they do not necessarily represent the same concept. Every term
which will be put into context in a specific domain is therefore a much
more powerful tool. If we now allow the domains to overlap slightly, we
will be able to generate a collection of thesauri which, like an atlas
of road maps of different scale and lay out, guide the searching researcher
from one domain to another. A programme on overlapping thesauri in mathematics
and physics starts soon. Here we try to develop a mathematical theory (16)
to match overlapping terms (and there synonyms) extracted from a large
and coherent set of articles within well-defined fields in mathematics
and physics. The ultimate goal of this research programme is to develop
techniques for the generation of an Atlas of contextual scientific index
terms.

Following the requirements and expectations on storage, retrieval, etc.,
as resulted from our investigations, reported in the beginning of this
paper, and in order to appreciate the new possibilities and fit them into
the framework of conscientious scientific discourse, we have to clarify
and define the various characteristics of the different kinds of information.

6.1. Texts

The essay form of scientific documents is a typical result of the use
of print on paper sheets. The portability, browsability and comprehensiveness
of the paper product is the end of a century long historical development
process. In an electronic environment the characteristics might well change.
All components of the paper product which are repetitive can be deleted
as recurring objects, as they are always retrievable from the archive when
needed for the integration of information by the reader. For example, it
is customary (or even obligatory) to have an introduction which explains
the authors' goals and serves to embed the reported work into a wider context.
In an electronic environment, say a kind of hypertext structure, introductions
might be reduced to pointers which link reported work to a review article
in which the whole context is fully explained. Furthermore repetitive reviews
of one's own and other researchers' work can be reduced if the structure
of the reporting has a more modular build-up instead of the present linear
story-telling structure. The aim then is to structure texts in different
types of modules, in such a way that each kind of module has its own information
value. It is important to note that scientific articles are already well
structured according to well established rules and have familiar headings
such as: Introduction, Methods, Data, Results, Discussion, Conclusion.
However, this does not mean that all sentences dealing with, say, methods,
can be found under that heading. Analysis shows that linear texts are generally
much less structured than section headings suggest.

In our research programme we analyse a coherent collection of scientific
papers in two different ways. Firstly, we analyse the different types of
information contained in the documents (e.g., Goal, Embedding, Tools &
Methods, Results, Data-handling, Apparatus, Discussions) as a first break-up
of the linear structure. We take this set of types as basic modules and
try to fit the original text therein. Of course such a simple linear set
of modules is not sufficient. Within every module we make a further subdivision
which relates this module to others. So, within the module "Apparatus"
we can, e.g., distinguish the description of the apparatus used, the apparatus
in context to other machines (the embedding of the experimental set-up),
the apparatus in contrast to apparatus used by others (apparatus as part
of the discussion). The main goal here is to reveal a possible modularity
of information by analysing existing articles, in order to come to a heuristic
model for a non-linear modular way of writing articles.

This part of the analysis is augmented by a linguistic study where the
same set of articles is analysed as argumentative texts. According to well-established
models of the Pragma-Dialectical approach in argumentational theory (16),
we try to reveal the line of reasoning in a scientific article with the
aim to use it as a tool for better structuring. The goal here is to develop
a model for the relationship between the above mentioned modules. This
way, we can assign to each module not only a scientific tag, but also a
rhetorical one, e.g., a module "Goal" has a completely different
character than a module "Data-Handling". While in the "Goal"
module the author can express all kinds of speculations freely, the value
of the module "Data-Handling" demands very strict adherence to
well-established standards and procedures. Integrating both approaches
will result in a model for a modular presentation of scientific texts,
where each model has a well defined scientific as well as contextual character.
The advantage of such a structuring is clear for the following modes of
use:

Modularly structured information fits the characteristics of electronic
media which are intrinsically more than linear. Modules fit nicely in the
hyper-text philosophy and transcend the present use of hyper text as a
structuring on top of intrinsic linear essay's.

By putting the various components of scientific discourse in context,
the refereeing standards can be improved as they can be defined as a function
of the module (refereeing the module "Data-Handling" demands
more rigorous standards in contrast to the module "Goal").

In case of a modular build-up, the searching reader can confine the
search to particular modules and does not need to retrieve the entire communication
as is the case with document retrieval; e.g., if a researcher wants to
know about the design of a particular detector, only those parts of the
work are of interest which deal with the detector, independent of how interesting
and important the rest of the communication is for the original author.

6.2. Active mathematics and simulations

Although text-based, mathematics represents a totally independent way
of representing results. The research in this field is now aimed mainly
at defining a (SGML)
grammar for mathematics which will enable manipulation of formulae and
their use in calculation of symbolic manipulation packages.

Simulations contain again an independent way of communicating scientific
ideas. Here the reader has to have the possibility to change the model
and/or the parameters to develop one's own further research based on published
research. The publication of computer programs, be it simulations or calculation
packages, demands the development of one's own standards and rules. Some
experience is actually gained in the management of program libraries, such
as the Computer Program Library from the
Queens University of Belfast, which is integrated in the paper journal
Computer Physics Communications.

6.3. Still Pictures.

The analysis of potential applications of non-textual material still
has to start. Pictures will be more than just "illuminations"
of the text. Pictures have their own intrinsic value. At first sight, we
can already appreciate the great difference between a graph (in any dimension)
and a colour picture of an aberration of an optical device. Interestingly,
in the peer review process, no standards or rules are established to review
pictures as independent objects. In the analyses of pictures and their
rôles, the results of textual studies will be helpful. Important
items are:

There are differences between data, data-handling and data-presentation.
One can imagine a hierarchy of modules: first raw data (a module a reader
cannot change, and which integrity is pertinent); then a module data-reduction
and handling (a module a reader can change and replace), and finally a
module data-representation (a reader certainly can change, use, and manipulate).

Similarly, there are differences between pictures of immutable objects
and pictures resulting from, e.g., calculations or recorded data. In the
first case the whole picture has to be preserved as well as possible (e.g.,
a photograph of a phenomenon, or the design of a chip). In cases where
we deal with a digital picture (e.g. a CCD camera picture), the data instead
of the picture can be stored. In the second case, e.g., a non-linear map
or other structure which results from a calculation, it might be advantageous
to have the algorithm (and parameters) stored as well. With the rising
speed of data-handling, a reader might want to redo instead of view the
picture.

6.4. Motion Pictures

Apart from the items mentioned for still pictures the following extra
features have to be tackled. Film or video (a sequence of still pictures)
differs from animation. In the case of film and video we still have the
difference between immutable and re-creational pictures. In the case of
animations, however, we can also think of including a tool for the reader's
adaptations and modelling.

6.5. Sound

The case of sound is special because digital sound is a very well developed
field with an almost total manipulation capacity. Nevertheless, the use
of sound as an independent way of presenting scientific results is hardly
considered at present, except in speech research or general sound recording.
The cognitive value of sound objects is so different from visible objects
that a completely new field can be opened up.

In this paper, we first try to define the rôle of information
in the science process and describe investigations where we try to explain
the communication needs of researchers in different fields. This information
provides us with a backbone and yardstick for the development of new ways
of organising the scientific communication process. It clearly points to
a greater integration of various types of information as well as the capacity
of the reader to manipulate this freely. This way, social, cognitive and
intellectual demands can be met by the emerging technologies in a cross-fertilising
way.

This "user" research is a starting point for our collaboration
in various university projects under the umbrella programme "Communication
in Physics". In this programme, we investigate the opportunities modularity
of scientific information offers, to make optimum use of electronic media.
We also research sophisticated combinatorial techniques to develop an Atlas
of overlapping controlled index term systems.

Although the programme "Communication in Physics" is focused
on physics as main corpus of investigation, the results are expected to
be applicable to other research domains as well. However, in line with
our conclusions, specific cultural differences should then be taken into
account.

Our main message in all this is, that in order to go beyond the "electronification"
of the classical publishing process, we need to have an in-depth knowledge
of the use, needs and presentation requirements and possibilities of scientific
information.

The work described in this paper is a collaboration of the Faculties
of Arts, and Mathematics, Informatics, Physics, and Astronomy (WINS) of
the University of Amsterdam, the National Research Institute for Mathematics
and Computer Science (CWI),and Elsevier Science. The work is partly financially
supported by: Stichting Physica, Royal Academy of Science and Arts (KNAW),
Royal Library (KB), Shell Research Amsterdam (KSLA), Elsevier Science.